Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Andreas Tille writes ("Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format"):
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:42:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Thanks to everyone who responded.  I (with some help from Sean and
> > some review from Sam) have worked the answers into a wiki page:
> > 
> >    https://wiki.debian.org/GitPackagingSurvey
> 
> I admit I did not joined the dgit discussion - may be that's the reason
> I can not really match the branches that are used in Perl team policy
> 
>      https://perl-team.pages.debian.net/git.html#repository_layout
> 
> (which is used by several other teams I'm working in) to the table in
> the Wiki.

My table is supposed to be useable without knowing anything about
dgit.

I looked at the perl page you link to, and it says:

  repository layout

  We're using the typical git-buildpackage branch layout: Upstream
  sources are kept (in plain, uncompressed form) in the upstream
  branch. The data needed to regenerate original source tarballs from
  the upstream branch is kept with the help of pristine-tar(1) in the
  pristine-tar branch. Upstream sources are merged with Debian-specific
  changes in the master branch, which is the usual place to work in.

I think this means you `git merge' the `upstream' branch into your
`master' branch.

What it doesn't say is how changes to the upstream files are
represented.  Can you explain ?

I tried reading the web page but I am trying to avoid reading and
understanding the manpages for every one of our hundreds of
git/package/branch management utilities, and the bulk of the page was
just runes for dpt or gbp.

There's a section "Patches" which mentions quilt(1).  So I think the
answer to the question "how are changes to upstream files represented"
is "the upstream files are not directly modified in the master branch;
instead, there are patches to them, in patches in debian/patches" ?

That would mean you are using the form I call "unapplied".

> > Please let us know if we have missed one.  It is probably better if
> > you ask us rather than just adding it, unless you're sure that what
> > you are adding isn't the same as one of the existing ones.  In
> > particular it seems that "unapplied" is used by a large number of
> > people with disjoint tooling and disjoint terminology.
> 
> So I'm just asking if its just me not understanding the table properly
> or whether the layout I'm used to in close to all teams I'm working in
> is not mentioned.

I think we have a terminological problem.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.